GRAND RAPIDS, MI – A proposal to remove several West Side residences next to Grand Valley State University’s downtown campus will come up for city Planning Commission review today, four years after a plan for townhouses failed to win City Commission approval.

Jeff Boorsma now wants to raze seven properties he owns on the west side of Seward Avenue, between Veto and California streets, then market the land for higher-density residential redevelopment.

Demolition without a specific plan for redevelopment needs a special land-use approval from the Planning Commission. A hearing is at 1 p.m. in the city’s Development Center, 1120 Monroe Ave. NW.

“Over the years I’ve had interest (in the land from prospective buyers and developers) and some of that has been for raw land versus existing housing,” said Boorsma, who also owns the nearby Adobe In & Out restaurant.

Boorsma in 2008 got Planning Commission support for a 24-unit townhouse project at the site, then called Grand Rapids’ elected city commissioners “cowards” when they halted the rezoning process by refusing to bring the issue up for a vote. Some residents opposed the student-housing proposal, saying it would threaten the neighborhood’s single-family homes.

MLive file photo | Emily ZoladzA 2008 file photo of Jeff Boorsma standing on property which the city approved for demolition on Thursday.

Though the seven properties currently are zoned for traditional neighborhood low-density residences, a proposed “U to the Zoo” land-use plan for the area recommends them for “mixed residential” use that could include higher-density housing. A Planning Commission hearing on that plan, which was initiated to resolve conflict between neighborhood residents and business interests, is Sept. 27.

The properties have structures built around the end of the 19th century. Only one property is occupied. Pending city approval, Boorsma hopes to demolish the houses by the end of the year.

South West Area Neighbors, the local neighborhood association, is not supporting the demolition because there’s no specific plan for redevelopment, said Mary Bueche, community organizer.

“There wasn’t any discussion (by the board) about housing going down,” she said. “It was more, ‘What’s the plan?’”